Talks About Talks

Who came up with the idea of doing lessons and talks about talks, including very recent talks? Is this an activity that removes us from our own serious personal study of the gospel or does it elevate current teachings with scripture and bolster current leaders’ authority by studying their words? Is it a worthwhile practice? Is it punishment for not listening to conference?

I was reading the intro to Stephen Prothero’s book, The American Bible: Whose America Is This? How Our Words Unite and Divide Us. His book attempts to select books or other texts that form the basis of American values, much as the Bible functions for Christianity. Given the inherent comparison, I couldn’t help but reflect on the way we engage with our scripture study as a community–or don’t.

Jews and Christians are often referred to as People of the Book. [1] Mormons, with additional books of scripture beyond the Bible, certainly should qualify for this title. The manner in which Jews engage with their holy texts is an example to us all. The texts are there to be debated, critiqued, commentaries written and then rebutted. As Stephen Prothero states regarding the American texts we value:

These texts too affirm competing goods without offering a method for choosing among them. So, rather than a record of the beliefs Americans hold in common, this book is a record of what Americans value. More specifically, it is a record of what Americans value enough to fight about.

Are our scriptures and conference talks an ongoing debate about what we value? Do we discuss competing goods and multiple interpretations? He adds:

The way to wisdom here lies not in affirming simple truths but in engaging in difficult discussions.

Do we, in our Gospel Doctrine classes, engage in difficult discussions? Or do we merely affirm simple truths and consider that when the correlation committee speaks, the thinking has been done? Are the questions we ask thought-provoking or designed to yield “the same ten answers”? The fact that we call them “Sunday School answers” tells me the answer, although I suspect that there are wards out there where members do engage in thoughtful debate about the issues raised in our texts. Prothero raises the issue of fear of outside ideas infiltrating our values, a concern perhaps shared by those who prefer to exclude outside references in talks or lessons.

Whenever we say, “That is un-American” or “That is what America is all about,” we are declaring our allegiance to this republic. And whenever our fellow citizens disagree with us, they are doing the same. Such declarations are charged because our unity is fragile. In every generation our pluribus threatens to overtake our unum; in every generation the nation must be imagined anew. So we are forever anxious about possible threats to our unity: immigrants, traitors, un-American ideas.

Since the New Testament is full of parables, many of which have paradoxical meaning, they are ripe for debate. It’s one reason the Bible has a long shelf life, not because it contains the answers, but because it poses difficult questions. This is one reason that giving talks about talks is an idea with merit, depending upon its execution. Individuals wrest with the scriptures, and then we wrest with their interpretations of the scriptures. While some might say that removes us from the scriptures as source material, it also engages us with the ideas presented in the scriptures. Or at least it has the potential to do so. To paraphrase Prothero:

It is tempting to imagine that the [scriptures speak] with one voice–the voice of [God], perhaps. It does not. After all, [its authors] disagreed profoundly with one another . . . . after the speaking and the listening, we talk back. . . . what makes great books great: their ability to generate commentary and controversy.

If you question the assertion that the scriptures don’t generate commentary and controversy, you must not have been paying attention in history class. If there were one obvious interpretation of the word of God, there would be but one religion worldwide, or just one per holy text.

Within Mormonism, we have our own unique scriptures to debate. Do we engage with them seriously enough to generate the level of engagement that the Bible has generated for two thousand years? There are plenty of meaty topics, from the morality of Nephi slaying Laban [2] to the meaning of unrighteous dominion. Are we debating these ideas in our wards or just regurgitating a sanitized, simplistic, literalist interpretation? [3] If we aren’t debating the meaning of the scriptures, why not? Is it a fear of conflict? That’s certainly a Mormon concern, but also addressed in the book intro:

So incivility is our problem as well. But what ails us is not just a matter of the words we choose or the tone we adopt. There is also the matter of our collective amnesia. The chain of memory linking us to the great voices of our collective past . . . has been broken.

To put it another way, we have been told what the scriptures say so much that we forget what they actually say. [4] We are content, like children, to be read to and shown pictures rather than to read.

Do you have deep discussions in your ward about the various ways to view the dilemmas posed by scripture stories? Or is there one interpretation presented and allowed?

Do you like the talks about talks? Do people question the interpretations or just use it to leader-worship the speakers whose talks they are talking about? Is it used to engage more deeply with the texts or to bolster authority of church leaders?

Discuss.

[1] The Quran specifically refers to monotheists that predate Islam in this way:

“If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.

And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account.”

[2] Or as Spock put it, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” I was in a lesson that mentioned this story in conjunction with obedience, but without raising the problem that it posed for Laban, the one! He wasn’t exactly Jesus, willingly sacrificing himself for others. That seems a valid question to raise in this debate, which I did.

[3] Traditionally, our manuals aren’t great at teeing up difficult moral-debate type questions, but many of our better Gospel Doctrine teachers are. And when they are not, hopefully the students are. And one viewpoint, among many, that can be represented is certainly a literalist one. It just shouldn’t be the only one.

[4] This became very clear to me recently when I was teaching the Old Testament last year. We shorthand the characters in the stories in ways that disconnect us from the text. Prophets are all good and represent God. Kings are either good or bad; we have a list in our heads to know which are which. Groups of people are good or bad depending on their interactions with the chosen people. These heuristics are ways of remaining distant from the text, not delving into it. As I taught, I found that the lesson manual engaged in these exact same heuristics, and in so doing often misrepresented the text. Class members were enlivened when we read the actual text, sans correlated interpretation, and they discovered that the prophet Samuel was very political, acting like most humans, not merely a mouthpiece for God. They saw Saul as not really a king so much as a mafia kingpin. Suddenly the motives of the text brought new ideas to the surface, ideas that were hidden in plain sight.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by hawkgrrrl

Hawkgrrrl has been blogging since March 2008, publishing hundreds of opinion pieces. She is a wife and mother of three, a business executive, a returned missionary, and is active in her LDS ward. She likes oil painting, reading, theater, and international travel.
View all posts by hawkgrrrl

31 thoughts on “Talks About Talks”

I don’t like talks about talks and I refuse to participate in that practice. When these talks are given in my ward, there is almost never any original thought introduced by the speaker. The common practice is simply to reiterate the ideas given in the original talk. The speakers might as well just reread the talk word for word.

I don’t know whether the intent behind this idea was to emphasize the teachings of current day leaders, to discourage original and potentially differing ideas in sacrament meeting talks, or to simply improve the quality of talks given by providing a ready-made foundation. Well, that third possibility certainly didn’t pan out as most of these talks are as boring as Sunday School lessons taught straight from the manual and just as superficial.

In our previous ward, talks were topical…sort of. Speakers were sent a letter naming the topic, and then given a list of recommended source material, which was always from the last GC. Most notable was a statement that controversial statements should be avoided. As expected, most talks were bland except for the occasional talk where the speaker went rogue.

THANK YOU for calling attention to this practice! It drives me crazy. I have little doubt that it’s designed to bolster the authority of church leaders. Unfortunately, it does so at the cost of diverting us from the scriptures.

About the issue of Sunday school answers – how do you make sure that adherence to the “straight and narrow” doesn’t just lead to narrow-mindedness? We are emphatically NOT a religion that thinks there are many ways to get home to God. We’re all about adhering to that very narrow path. Consequently, it shouldn’t be too surprising that our Sunday school lessons aren’t the free-thinking orgies that we might like them to be. They’re about telling us what the “straight and narrow” path is, and about encouraging us to get on it. The question I would raise is similar to those raised by you:

How much room (if any) Is there on a “straight and narrow path” for a variety of ideas, interpretations, and values?

GD is taught by a retired University professor, she is very good but consistently prepares far more material than there is time for, so sorry no time for discussion or debate! HPG is such a snore that few would even notice a debate as we barely audibly read the lesson from scraps of paper in class.

Talks about talks. Well who gives those talks? Mostly the brethren. So talks about talks is really about reenforcing following the brethren. With serious questions about BoM historicity, “Lamanite” genetics, translation methods, blacks, gays and women the once (nearly) infallible certitude of LDS authority has been very seriously eroded. What’s left? “Because we said so.” And if you want to be considered a faithful member in good standing you must echo what we say as a demonstration of your allegiance like good little Mobots.

HAT, HATE, HATE talks about talks. I suppose if a person would critically (not necessarily critical) analyzed the talk, it might be one thing.

but I heard the talk in General conference and I read the talk in the Ensign. I don’t need someone to now read it again over the pulpit or quote from it.

If they are discussing a topic and using a quote in a talk to reenforce a point, that is one thing.

OTOH, when we do the Teachings for Our Time talks in HP, we generally can get quickly off topic and sometimes have a good discussion on a point make in the talk.

But most everyone are afraid to say that they don’t agree with a point from a GA’s talk (It’s a one way trip to hell apparently), so there has to be some kind of a buffer to allow alternate viewpoints. It’s easier to disagree with the person in the room than the talk itself.

I join in voicing my strong dislike for this lazy, safe, practice on the part of bishoprics (and, it is highly likely that the direction comes from Mount Olympus: the stake president). I echo, particularly, the first comment above by DB.

I know that my attitude derives from my far from center overall approach and belief set with regard to the “gospel” (whatever it is). Regarding “doctrine” and Church History, I enjoy learning new things, new interpretations, new opinions and the respectful debate on them. It is mentally stimulating. I get no such stimulation at church–though I have several friends there that make attending sacrament meeting somewhat valuable.

I stopped attending both SS (20+ years ago) and HP classes (4 years) because the overwhelming attitude of others is (as hawkgrrrl says)…

“Do we, in our Gospel Doctrine classes, engage in difficult discussions? Or do we merely affirm simple truths and consider that when the correlation committee speaks, the thinking has been done? Are the questions we ask thought-provoking or designed to yield “the same ten answers”?”

I find my fellow ward members'(I’m not in Utah, but Phoenix–NOT Mesa) nearly unanimous (as measured by those that ever say anything in class) willingness to be vapid and insipid (yes, I know those are synonyms) sheep extremely disheartening. I have given up on speaking up everywhere except online. As I have written in comments before, (at the risk of confirming my/sounding arrogant) Mark Twain said something that conveys the tone of my current attitude: “Never try to teach a pig how to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

“Do you have deep discussions in your ward about the various ways to view the dilemmas posed by scripture stories? Or is there one interpretation presented and allowed?”

I’ve tried to pose different dilemmas and interpretations, but have been basically shouted down. Now I’m in the Family History class where we spend the whole hour on the computer looking for ancestors for Sunday School. It’s an AWESOME class and is getting so big (I counted 24 tablets/laptops in our class last week) that we’re actually having network congestion issues. I’ve been told they will split the ward “soon”, whatever that means.

As for priesthood meeting, I tried to bring some life to the class, but was shouted down. Now I bring my tablet to class, ignore the teacher, and keep doing the genealogy I started doing in Sunday School. I get nothing from the lessons, but at least I feel productive.

“Do you like the talks about talks? Do people question the interpretations or just use it to leader-worship the speakers whose talks they are talking about? Is it used to engage more deeply with the texts or to bolster authority of church leaders?”

I hate talks about talks, because generally the first talk bored me anyway, so the 2nd one is just as boring with no insight. On my mission we used to boast that we have a prophet, which would always prompt the question, well what did he say? I think talks about talks is an attempt to get us to remember what he said. Yes, it is leader worship, and is used to bolster authority.

Last April, I complained about Elder Oaks conference talk in priesthood, and two weeks later that was our lesson. Rather than rock the boat any more (because I obviously ruffled some feathers), I do genealogy now while ignoring the teacher, and everyone seems much happier.

#6 – Amen to NOT of Mesa. Were I to settle in the Valley of the Sun, Cave Creek or North Scottsdale would be my locale of choice, with some better parts of NW Phoenix a good second choice. If I just had to live in the East Valley, it’d be Queen Creek or AJ, but not Mesa and especially not Gilbert! It’s not that I don’t like my fellow Saints, I’d just prefer to freely swing a dead cat without hitting one. Thank goodness with the Phoenix temple there’s even less reason to cross the Salt river.

As to the topic at hand: Likewise I have a disdain for scripted and or ‘safe’ talks. True, good technique (on point, concise, and still spiritually uplifting) is highly desirable, but not unlike batting, no substitute for ‘live fire’…which means you have to feel like you’ve made a fool of yourself a few times before you get the hang of it. At times the spoon-feeding of the Gospel, whether sitting on my keester in Sacrament, or in Gospel Doctrine or PH, does get a bit cloying. Still, if I’m devoting precious time away from chilling under mine own roof, and letting my 49ers or Giants do their thing without my real-time attention (that’s why methinks the DVR is a Heavenly gift), I’m going to find a way to get SOMETHING out of what’s being presented. It’s as much my ‘job’ to get uplifted as it’s the job of the conducting bishopric member and/or the assigned speakers.

I find myself doing exactly what MH is doing. Much more fun helping people navigate ancestry.com, scan in pictures to familysearch, etc. I need to fire up the tablet so I could continue doing that in HP. The smart phone just doesn’t work as well for family history, and the laptop is a little too conspicuous.

Talk on talks are just plain lame. Do they think that we are incapable of sticking with an assigned topic? Are they assuming we are not intelligent enough to have original thought or that we might teach false doctrine? What happened to being guided by the spirit to speak on what the congregation needs most? While we are on the subject, what ever happened to the prayer meetings to give you a little extra spiritual boost before giving your talk? I guess if you are giving a talk that a general authority gave it carries it’s own spiritual power. Listening to the same thing we already heard in conference is bad enough during Relief Society but Sacrament meeting too? I vote NO. It’s like eating oatmeal every morning for breakfast. Yes, oatmeal is good for you, and I really do like oatmeal, but meal after meal of nothing but oatmeal becomes old, and just plain bland.

I do exactly as MH, sans family history. When a sacrament meeting talk, ss lesson or HPG lesson/discussion heads into a rote, boring and predictable cul de sac, I tune out and log on. I wish I were as spiritual and could say I do family history, but I visit different places which I find interesting. I try to stick to gospel topics and study but am not always successful. Now that football season is over, there is less distraction from the sports world.

What I don’t understand is when I engage with people on an individual basis or in small groups, they are free to share their opinions and thoughts and we enjoy fun and informative discussions. But, when we merge into a sacrament meeting, ss class or HPG everyone retreats to Fortress Mormon and just repeats gospel bromides. The group think takes over.

I teach the conference talk each month in RS. I try to bring in thoughts and insights but since it is a talk by a GA, all comments will be in agreement with his talk. Any disagreement of his interpretation of doctrine or scripture or looking from another point of view would be seen as not supporting the brethren. So it is hard to get a very thought provoking discussion going.

Being challenged is not our strong suit as a culture-that would be obedience. I brought up an idea I saw once that argued Nephi may have been deceived into killing Labon. Could have heard a pin drop until someone piped up that’s not what the prophets have said. Guess to many members feel the thinking had been done for them to explore new ideas.

#13 – Likewise Anakin Skywalker justifying the summary execution of Count Dooku…”The Chancellor was right…the Count WAS too dangerous to be taken alive. It was the will of the Force!”

I hate to shatter delusions of do-goodery, but when one is on a covert mission like Nephi was doing (likely all along thinking, “I’m a dead man…”), taking your drunken adversary prisoner isn’t likely a viable option. The account isn’t too detailed but it’s not unreasonable to assume that the young man didn’t have experience in this sort of thing. A more experienced soldier is grabbing the sentry from behind, holding his mouth shut and quietly shoving the dagger home. You might say the miracle is that Nephi survives Commando training “OJT” and accomplishes the mission.

The emPHAsis on “don’t rock the boat” is yet another sign of something most old salts rue about the US Navy as well…”Iron men in wooden ships have been replaced by iron ships with wooden men”.

When I taught GD, I used to like posing some of those “theoretical” questions that can come up from time to time. Those who are uncomfortable with it tended to outnumber the ones who like to consider things. So the discussions tended to be short because the skirmers usually won out.

I seriously HATE this practice!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can’t stand when a High Councilor just reads Elder So and So’s talk or major portions of it! I can see new members but people who have been in the Church for a while? Do your own study!!!!!!

Although we do at times have good and valuable discussion in class, it is never an environment that fosters critical thinking. I wish we were at a point where we could openly converse and look at things from different angles while at the same time not worry about giving offense to more close minded individuals.

No one questions the ideas of the church leadership while teaching a lesson or giving a “talk about a talk”. A lot of times it does end up feeling like leader worship to me.

This article reminds me of a particular Sunday recently when I left church very frustrated. Once a month someone from the EQ presidency teaches the lesson using a GA talk from last General Conference. This week was Elder Ballards “Stay in the Boat and Hold On!”. There are some good messages in the talk but when we read “Recently, I spoke at the new mission presidents seminar and counseled these leaders: keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the church… We will not and… CANNOT lead you astray”.

That’s when I really wanted to raise my hand and say that I find that statement troubling. Not just troubling but dangerous. Not to mention arrogant. But I felt like I couldn’t speak up because I knew my comment would not be well received. There were comments affirming Elder Ballards statement. So I sat in silence. Unfortunately the rhetoric that some of the brethren use creates an environment where we can’t comfortably and reasonably voice an opinion different than that of their own.

I was stunned last week when the high councilor introduced his subject by referring to a recent GC talk. We live in a stake with college grads in all leadership callings. We do have a new SP who may have recently received training on this subject. This is probably the explanation.
The graduate school educated high councilor said one or two paragraphs from the talk, and then went right out on his own for 20 minutes. The subject was the same, but the content was original and heartfelt. Big kudos to him. There is the model, or even better, intro the subject and only refer to the GC talk when using a few select quotes.

“Who came up with the idea of doing lessons and talks about talks, including very recent talks?”

I am really curious about the very first question. Maybe someone knows, but is this instruction that has come from mid- or upper level leaders? Or, is this just something that began on the local level and is spreading like a cultural plague from unit to unit? I ask because it seems pretty consistent in any of the units we have been in lately, but I don’t ever recall hearing it as instruction. Then again, I’m not usually invited to those kind of meetings, so I just don’t know. Does anyone? (Not a snarky question, I have been wondering for a while now.)

The best-est though, is when it is a talk, quoting a GC talk, where the general authority speaker is quoting another general authority, probably from a GC talk previously given. Matryoshka talks, that’s what I call ’em.

If I’m assigned a GA talk I generally try to pick out a point I want to expand, bring in personal experience, and other thoughts on that particular point.
I haven’t always been assigned a GA talk though. Where I am, it happens fairly regularly, but not all the time.
One of the best talks in recent years was given by an articulate convert of a couple of years, who clearly knew and studies the bible, who had no computer access at home, and hadn’t been force fed years and years of GA quotes. Her remarks and perspectives were incredibly refreshing.

Doesn’t anyone suspect that the reason for talks about talks is for the less-than-diligent Mormons who see one conference session at most and, though well-intentioned, never happen to get around to reading the ones that were missed? I assume that this is the “higher-ups” answer to making sure that the words of the Apostles and Prophets are heard by as many as possible and that it will prompt them to link in their minds inspirational words to the official Priesthood leaders. Yes, it requires patience for those who are diligent, but its not that different from the rest of church life—good missionaries have to sit through lectures on keeping the mission rules, active members who need some counsel from the Bishop have to be put aside for the less committed who show up once a year and get hustled into his office OR for the struggling regular members who only get by with lots and lots of direct attention. So, when I am in my more charitable frame of mind, I try to think–well I’ve heard this before, but it is a nice message and I am glad someone is getting a chance to hear it that may not have heard it. And, I confess, I am sometimes in that group that didn’t get around to reading the missed section. Am I glad when those who are assigned to give a talk on a talk take the theme and come up with their own unique messages? Yes! But having had a calling once where I had to assign talks in a small ward, I know that not everyone can do that, and some people need a lot of encouragement just to get up there in the first place.

#18 and #21 — that’s what I do. Go on, assign me a talk about a talk! I’ll pull one or two good quotes out, then write the talk I’d actually like to give. Not a problem at all.

The single worst talk I’ve ever heard in church was from a young man with a reading disability read an entire GA talk verbatim. It was not faith-building or instructive in any way, and given that this was a fairly predictable result given the young man’s disability, I thought it was pretty cruel for the leaders not to have foreseen it and modified the assignment (e.g. “Here’s a quote from a conference talk, please talk about how it makes you feel.”). Whenever someone recites the quote about Spencer W. Kimball never having attended a boring sacrament meeting, I bring up this story and suggest that even Pres. Kimball may have been reading his scriptures during the boring meetings, and getting amazing insights from there and not the speakers.

I don’t know where the practice comes from, but I moved to another ward, same stake. My last ward had talks on talks, this one is given a topic, but it seems to be the same topic all month long. This month is the difference between testimony and conversion. I haaaate the talking on talks bit. I also haven’t been asked to speak in the last 4 years (three new wards) prolly bc of my known unorthodoxy. Whatevs, you can’t stop me on open mic day, so there.

Also my classes rarely can have topics discussed in any deep way. Last week I volunteered to be a primary substitute because I was tired of the same old “the gay agenda is attacking us” tangents and gospel = bill of rights tangents in Rexburg. There was that one time in Sunday school the teacher asked if there are any times we shouldn’t follow the brethren; I shared that answers to my prayers before had conflicted with their counsel…..and I was shortly shouted down and it was established to never not follow any counsel given ever. Like I said, I just volunteered for nursery instead of stay where I was at……

I think “talks about talks” is a cultural phenomenon rather than being due to instruction from leaders. It may be laziness on the part of bishoprics as they try to generate topics for sacrament meeting. It takes some work to come up with interesting topics without repetition.

Let’s just say there is not as much independent thought among the masses as in the bloggernacle. I’m not sure people are even aware of what they are missing or even recognize the leader worship that occurs.

The most interesting talks I find are when someone offers their unique perspective on a core gospel topic. I try to promote this by assigning topics with a simple question such as “what does grace mean to you?” or “where do you find God?”

I would love to find a like-minded sister to call as the sacrament meeting coordinator to assist assigning speakers and topics but I am still looking.

AJ, I don’t think talks about talks is laziness of bishops. I think it is directed from the GA’s for RS/PH, and if it is good enough for those classes, by golly it’s good enough for sacrament meeting too.

Maybe laziness isn’t the best word, maybe it is a lack of imagination or inspiration. I’ve sat through a lot of bishopric or ward council meetings trying to generate a list of topics without getting much response. If it is the current Mormon cultural phenomenon to use conference talks that can be the path of least resistance to generate the list of topics.

Maybe instead of laziness it is also ignorance, a genuine lack of understanding of how we really could improve the quality of our worship by relying more on members to constribute fresh perspectives rather than parroting a general authority.

As for using conference talks for RS/PH (Teachings for our times), this is only 1 week per month. I think that is perfectly reasonable to review recent conference talks and highlights. I’m afraid most of these lessons are poorly done with a verbatim reread, when a genuine discussion of the topic would be better. This is the fault of the local members and teachers, not any direction from church headquarters.

Once a month is too much for my taste, but I think the idea of “highlights” or a “best of” conference talks is a great idea and could generate an interesting discussion. Rather than focusing on a single talk, focus on quotes from several talks.

Having said that, without preparing members beforehand about a “best of” conference talks, it could be a dud. But if a teacher could say, “Here are 3 or 4 quotes I liked”, and then let members use their tablets to look up the talks in class and say, “Oh, I liked Elder so-and-so” could be interesting. But if nobody has a tablet, and they weren’t prepared, I could see this go south in a hurry.

I was thinking that maybe the intention of the Bishopric member assigning the topic isn’t made clear.

1. Here is a talk from last GC
2. I’d like you to study the talk
3. Take out some points the person made that you thought were important and what it means to you.
4. Use the scriptures abd some other quotes to add any other points that apply to the subject
5. Please feel free to add your own thoughts and personal experiences.
6. Don’t read the talk to us or quote long passages or tell us what the person said in the talk.
7. Tell us how it applies to make your life and our lives better and draw closer to the Savior.

I was assigned to teach the ETB manual Chapter 4 (?) last week, on “finding joy in adversity.” Since President Benson never struck me in his best moments as a particularly joyful man, I had a little trouble getting into it. (And those Teachings of the Prophets manuals are one long series of Talks about Talks. Lawdy, lawdy.) So I cheated a little – brought in Elder Ashton’s great talk from April ’86, “Be Ye of Good Cheer,” used a couple of quotes from that and a couple of paraphrased stories and Pres. Benson quotes, and we talked about what “joy” meant.

Mercifully, it turned out pretty well. Sometimes it does, sometimes it falls flat. You just never know.

My understanding is that purpose of talks about talks is to synopsize and *not* to provide commentary, analysis or context. In other words, its goal is an even narrower range of discourse. Maybe I’m looking at this pessimistically.

Mormons are not people of the book. Instead, Mormons follow the (current) prophet, and Mormonism has no memory and no tradition of systematic theology. “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past [about blacks]…”